G.R. No.

128803

September 25, 1998

ASIAVEST LIMITED, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO HERAS, respondents DAVIDE, JR., J.: Facts: This case is commenced by the plaintiff seeking that the defendant to be ordered to pay the judgment awarded by the Hong kong Court. The defendant, however, contends that no writ of summons or copy of a statement of claim of was ever served to him; thus, jurisdiction over his person was never acquired. The action filed in Hong Kong against Heras was in personam, since it was based on his personal guarantee of the obligation of the principal debtor. Issue: WON the foreign judgment is enforceable Held: No. Jurisdiction was not properly acquired. Notice sent outside the state to a non-resident is unavailing to give jurisdiction in an action against him personally for money recovery. Summons should have been personally served on Heras in Hong Kong. In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by personal service of summons; and if he cannot be personally served with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service may be. If he is temporarily out of the country, any of the following modes of service may be resorted to: (1) substituted service, (2) personal service outside the country, with leave of court; (3) service by publication, also with leave of court, or (4) any other manner the court may deem sufficient. However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. G.R. No. 15607 September 17, 2008

SPS. JESUS CHING AND LEE POE TIN vs. SPS. ADOLFO & ARSENIA ENRILE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Facts: Petitioners purchased from certain La Fuente a lot who delivered the deed of sale with owners duplicate certificate of title. The conveyance, however, was not registered to the registry of deeds. Instead, petitioners executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim recorded and annotated at the back of the title. Petitioners took physical possession of the property. Few years after, petitioners received a notice of levy in favor of respondents. Issue: WON the adverse claim is superior over the levy

Held: No. The Court has invariably ruled that in case of conflict between a vendee and an attaching creditor, an attaching creditor who registers the order of attachment and the sale of the property to him as the highest bidder acquires a valid title to the property as against a vendee who had previously bought the same property from the same owner but who failed to register his deed of sale. This is because registration is the operative act that binds or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned. It is upon registration that there is notice to the whole world. But where a party has knowledge of a prior existing interest, as here, which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him Knowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to registration. Here, petitioners adverse claim is annotated at the back of the title coupled with the fact that they are in possession of the disputed property. These circumstances should have put respondents on guard and required them to ascertain the property being offered to them has already been sold to another to prevent injury to prior innocent buyers.